STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN
VICE PRESIDENT
ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPETITION, FOREIGN COMMERCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION

May 22, 2003

Good afternoon. My name is Jacqueline Gillan and I am Vice President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), a coalition of consumer, health, safety, law enforcement and insurance companies and organizations working together to support the adoption of laws and programs to reduce deaths and injuries on our highways. Advocates is unique. We focus our efforts on all areas affecting highway and auto safety - the roadway, the vehicle and the driver. Founded in 1989, Advocates has a long history of working closely with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in the development of federal legislative policies to advance safety. I am pleased to testify this morning on the importance of reauthorizing the motor vehicle safety programs and the traffic safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Every day millions of American families leave their homes to travel by car to work, school, medical appointments, soccer practice, shopping malls and cultural activities. Although our nation's highway system has created mobility opportunities that are the envy of the world, it has also resulted in a morbidity and mortality toll that is not. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recently released the preliminary traffic fatalities for the year 2002 and the news was grim.

Overall, there were 42,850 deaths last year compared to 42,116 in 2001, an increase of 734 deaths. This is the highest number of motor vehicle fatalities in over a decade. The data show that motor vehicle fatalities rose in nearly every category of crashes. Alcohol-related fatalities dramatically increased by 522 deaths to a total of 17,970 fatalities; a record 10,626 deaths occurred in rollover crashes, nearly a 5 percent increase from last year; more teen drivers were killed for a total of 8,996 deaths; deaths for children 8 to 15 years old increased significantly to 1,604 lives lost; for the fifth consecutive year motorcycle deaths climbed to 3,276; and lastly, a majority of those killed in motor vehicle crashes were not wearing a seatbelt. In addition to the emotional toll, these deaths are associated with a large financial toll to society. According to DOT, the cost of motor vehicle crashes exceeds $230 billion annually.

Although the number of deaths slightly decreased in certain areas, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, crashes involving large trucks, and children under seven years of age, these marginal improvements barely offset what would have been a significantly larger increase in total traffic fatalities in 2002. The highway safety community takes no solace in these victories when the predominant trend has been a general increase in total highway deaths, reversal of improvements in alcohol-related fatalities, and unabated growth in the number of deaths in rollover crashes.

The six-year surface transportation reauthorization legislation submitted by DOT recommends more than $247 billion in spending. Without a major reversal in the growing number of highway fatalities and injuries in the next six years, almost 250,000 people will die and 18 million more will be injured at a societal cost of more than $1.38 trillion. The number of deaths is roughly equivalent to half the population of Portland, Oregon. The number of individuals injured in motor vehicle crashes is equal to the combined population of the states of North Dakota, Kansas, Montana, New Jersey and Washington. A mere 20 percent reduction in fatalities and injuries over the next six years would more than pay for the entire cost of the Administration's legislation.

This afternoon I will discuss the urgent need for the 108th Congress to enact a NHTSA reauthorization bill of the agency's motor vehicle and traffic safety programs that reverses this deadly trend and seriously addresses the unnecessary and preventable carnage on our highways. The good news is that effective, proven solutions and strategies already are on the shelf and ready to be used. Many states and communities already are employing these ideas and programs and realizing important reductions in highway deaths and injuries. Furthermore, technological solutions to improve the crashworthiness of motor vehicles are available and in use for some makes and models.

The map and charts attached to my testimony show a patchwork quilt of state laws. As a result, in 2003 most American families are not protected by laws that will ensure their safety when traveling on our nation's roads and highways. This is in contrast to aviation safety where every person, flying on every airplane, in every state is subject to the same uniform safety laws and regulations. This uniformity has been the foundation for achieving an exemplary safety record of aviation travel throughout the United States. Unfortunately, this is not the case for motor vehicle travel where nearly every state lacks some basic traffic safety law and thousands of Americans are killed and millions more injured every year.

While we are well on our way to having a uniform .08% BAC (blood alcohol concentration) per se law in every state, most states still lack basic highway safety laws.

32 states do not have a primary enforcement safety belt law.

11 states need to pass a .08% BAC per se law.

17 states do not have an adequate repeat offender law for impaired driving.

14 states do not prohibit open alcohol containers while driving.

17 states have serious gaps in their child restraint laws.

33 states do not require children ages 4 to 8 years old to use a booster seat.

30 states do not require all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet.

Most states do not protect new teen drivers with an optimal graduated driver license law.

Furthermore, some of the most important regulatory actions undertaken by NHTSA in the past thirteen years have been the result of congressional direction, primarily at the initiation of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. The most recent example was enactment of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (P.L. 106-414, Nov. 1, 2000) which directed the agency to undertake numerous rulemakings on a variety of issues related to tire and child passenger safety and provided the resources to do the job. This is a model Advocates strongly supports for enactment of the NHTSA reauthorization legislation in the 108th Congress.

In summary, Advocates urges the Senate Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce and Infrastructure to enact NHTSA reauthorization legislation that:

Provides sufficient funding resources for the agency to fulfill its mission,

Establishes a safety regulatory agenda with deadlines for agency action, and

Results in state adoption and enforcement of uniform lifesaving traffic safety laws.

NHTSA'S MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS SUFFER FROM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS AND THIS IS JEOPARDIZING EFFORTS TO BRING DOWN DEATHS AND INJURIES.

One of the most critical weapons in the battle to reduce deaths and injuries is adequate financial resources to support programs and initiatives to advance safety. At present, nearly 95 percent of all transportation-related fatalities are the result of motor vehicle crashes but NHTSA's budget is less than one percent of the entire DOT budget. Motor vehicle safety regulatory actions languish, state enforcement of impaired driving laws is inadequate, and NHTSA data collection is hampered because of insufficient resources to address these problems. Since the last NHTSA motor vehicle program reauthorization legislation was enacted, this Committee has needed to act twice in the past three years to correct severe funding shortfalls. When serious problems resulting in deaths and injuries were identified in some passenger vehicle airbags, NHTSA was compelled to issue an advanced airbag rule to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 to require new tests and advanced technology. Additional funds were needed by the agency to complete the necessary research and data analysis. Furthermore, during congressional hearings and media attention on the deadly rollover occurrence of Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone tires, it was revealed that neither the federal tire standard nor the roof crush standard had been updated since the early 1970s. Also, warning signs of the potential problem were missed because of inadequate data collection and analysis. Again, legislation was enacted providing additional funds to address the problem. In both cases, insufficient program funding and staff resources contributed to the agency's missteps in identifying and acting upon the problems.

The current authorization funding level for NHTSA's motor vehicle safety and consumer information programs is only $107.9 million, less than the economic cost of 110 highway deaths, which represents a single day of fatalities on our highways. Since 1980, the agency has been playing a game of catch-up. Today, funding levels for motor vehicle safety and traffic safety programs are not much higher than 1980 funding levels in current dollars.

For over twenty years, NHTSA has been underfunded and its mission compromised because of a lack of adequate resources to combat the rising tide of increased highway deaths and injuries. The legislative proposal released last week by DOT will continue to deny NHTSA the resources required to issue overdue motor vehicle safety regulations, upgrade vehicle safety standards that date back to the early 1970s, improve consumer information, attack impaired driving, enforce existing traffic safety laws, compel states to enact primary safety belt laws, and ultimately, lower the toll of highway deaths and injuries.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Increase funding authorization for NHTSA's motor vehicle safety and consumer information programs.

Increase traffic safety grant funding with a stronger emphasis on enforcement of laws to combat drunk driving and encourage seat belt use.

NHTSA SHOULD ISSUE ROLLOVER PREVENTION AND CRASHWORTHINESS STANDARDS TO STOP THE GROWING NUMBER OF ANNUAL HIGHWAY FATALTIES AND INJURIES DUE TO VEHICLE ROLLOVERS.

Last February, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee held groundbreaking hearings on the safety of sport utility vehicles (SUVs). The purpose of the hearing was to examine issues related to both the safety of SUV occupants as well as the safety of occupants of passenger vehicles involved in a crash with an SUV.

Rollover crashes result in a tragedy of massive proportions, with more than 10,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of crippling injuries to Americans each year. Rollover crashes represent only 3 percent of all collisions but account for 32 percent of all occupant fatalities.

In the last few years, light truck and van sales have amounted to slightly more than 50 percent of the new passenger vehicle market. This surprising market share for new SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans has been propelled mainly by the explosive growth in the purchase of new SUVs. Although cars still predominate in the passenger vehicle fleet - nearly two-thirds of registered vehicles - this proportion consists of an older car fleet that is increasingly being replaced by new light truck purchases, particularly of SUVs. The soaring popularity of SUVs since the start of the 1990s has resulted in more than doubling their numbers on the road during this period, accompanied by a doubling of fatal rollover crashes.

The preliminary results of NHTSA's annual Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for 2002 show yet another increase in deaths and injuries due to rollover crashes - from 10,130 in 2001 to 10,626 last year - with almost half of them due to an increase in rollover fatal crashes by SUVs and pickup trucks. In fact, our nation suffered an astounding 10 percent increase in SUV rollover deaths alone in just one year. When you add pickup trucks into the equation, seventy-eight (78) percent of the increase in passenger vehicle rollover deaths from 2001 to 2002 was due just to the increased fatal rollover crashes of SUVs and pickup trucks.

Six of every 10 deaths in SUVs last year occurred in rollover crashes. No other passenger vehicle has the majority of its deaths take place in rollovers. By contrast, the great majority of deaths in passenger cars - more than 75 percent - occur in other crash modes. It is very clear that we are needlessly taking lives in the U.S. because of the tendency of SUVs to roll over in both single- and multi-vehicle crashes.

At a press event in 1994, DOT announced several safety initiatives to address rollover crashes in lieu of issuing a rollover stability standard. Nearly ten years later, DOT has made little any progress in completing any of the major actions. NHTSA knows what needs to be done to protect our citizens from the lethal outcomes of rollover crashes. The agency failed to act when the need became clear years ago to stop the annual rise in deaths and injuries from rollovers. As the proportion of new vehicle sales strongly shifted each year towards light trucks and vans and away from passenger cars, NHTSA had an opportunity to act decisively to establish a vehicle stability standard to reduce the tendency of most SUVs and pickups to roll over, but the agency squandered that opportunity. It also had an opportunity at that time to fulfill its promises of improving occupant safety when, predictably, vehicles roll over. That could have been accomplished by improving the resistance of roofs to being smashed and mangled in rollovers, requiring upper and lower interior air bags instead of just padding to protect occupants, changing the design of door locks and latches to prevent ejection, installing anti-ejection window glazing, and increasing the effectiveness of seat belts in rollovers by properly restraining passengers with such well-known safety features as belt pre-tensioners.

Yet, here we are almost 10 years after NHTSA terminated rulemaking to set a vehicle stability standard with the American public placed at increased risk of death and injury every year because of the growing numbers and percentage of SUVs and pickups in the traffic stream. Instead, NHTSA has promised a consumer information regulation to reveal the on-road rollover tendencies of SUVs and pickups. However, that promise is highly qualified. Although the agency issued a rollover rating system based on static stability factor (SSF) and is developing a rating system based on a dynamic test procedure, the agency has warned that it will be years before enough vehicles are tested and enough data from the field are collected to be able to determine if the rollover ratings from dynamic testing are accurate indications of rollover tendencies. So, while NHTSA collects several years of data to determine whether its testing regime is even tenable, the American consumer will continue to buy vehicles that place individuals and families at increased risk of death and debilitating injuries.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Require NHTSA to issue a final rule on a rollover stability standard to prevent deaths and injuries.

Require NHTSA to issue a final rule on a rollover crashworthiness standard that includes improvements in roof strength, advanced upper interior head impact protection, ejection prevention measures that includes a combination of side air bags for upper and lower impact protection and window glazing, and integrated seating systems using pretensioners and load limiters in safety belts.

IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF 15-PASSENGER VANS

Perhaps one of the clearest indications that NHTSA needs to control basic vehicle designs that consistently produce high rates of rollover crashes are the horrific rollover crashes during the past few years among 15-passenger vans. A study released by NHTSA in late 2002 showed how, in 7 states, 15-passenger vans as a class, regardless of the number of passengers on board, are substantially less safe than all vans taken together. The data from FARS for the year 2000 showed that 17.6 percent of van crashes involved rollovers, not significantly greater than passenger cars at 15.3 percent. However, single vehicle rollover crashes of 15-passenger vans happen more frequently than with any other van when there are 5 occupants or more being transported. When these big vans have 5 to 9 passengers aboard, almost 21 percent of their single-vehicle crashes are rollovers. When the passenger load is between 10 and the maximum seating capacity of 15 occupants, single-vehicle rollovers are 29 percent of all van crashes. Even more dramatic, when 15-passenger vans are overloaded, i.e., more than 15 passengers on board, 70 percent of the single-vehicle crashes for these extra-heavy vans were rollovers. These findings are similar to those of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), released in October 2002, that found 15-passenger vans with 10 to 15 passengers onboard had a rollover rate about three times greater than that of vans seating 5 or fewer passengers. In addition, NTSB found that 15-passenger vans carrying 10 to 15 passengers rolled over in 96 of the 113 single-vehicle crashes investigated, or in 85 percent of those crashes.

Unfortunately, NHTSA has only issued advisories about more careful operation of these vans and the use of better-trained drivers, and has even stated that there is nothing inherently defective about their design. These disclaimers about the intrinsically poor stability and safety of 15-passenger vans are unsettling when they are viewed in relation to two safety recommendations issued by the NTSB on November 1, 2002 to NHTSA and to two vehicle manufacturers, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation. The NTSB recommendations asked NHTSA to include 15-passenger vans in the agency's rollover testing program and to cooperate with vehicle manufacturers to explore and test technologies, including electronic stability systems, that will help drivers maintain stable control over these vehicles.

S. 717, the Passenger Van Safety Act of 2003, sponsored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) seizes the initiative to improve the safety of 15-passenger vans by putting NTSB's recommendations into action. Advocates also supports fundamental changes in 15-passenger van design that will make them safer vehicles beyond the addition of stability-enhancing technologies and rollover test results showing their tendency to roll over. Unfortunately, 15-passenger vans, as well as larger passenger vehicles, especially medium and large SUVs and vans, along with small buses, are often exempted from key NHTSA safety regulations for crashworthiness. For example, because of the distance of seating positions in 15-passenger vans from side doors and the fact that the vans weigh more than 6,000 pounds, the lower interior side impact protection standard, FMVSS No. 214, does not apply to these big vans. This major safety standard also does not apply to any vehicles exceeding 6,000 pounds, or even to certain vehicles under this weight limit, such as walk-in vans, motor homes, ambulances, and vehicles with removable doors. Bigger passenger vehicles, then, as well as certain kinds of smaller passenger vehicles, are exempt from the minimal protection required by FMVSS No. 214.

Similarly, the current roof crush standard - a standard that is weak and ineffective in preventing both general roof collapse and local intrusion in rollover crashes - exempts all passenger vehicles above 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating. This means that 15- passenger vans, other large vans, small buses, and well-known makes and models of SUVs and pickup trucks, do not have to meet even the inadequate test compliance requirements of FMVSS No. 216. Neither of the exemptions for larger, heavier passenger vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating is based on any compelling data that these vehicles are somehow safe for their occupants without adherence to even these two weak standards. In fact, some of the vehicles with the worst rollover crash rates and roof failures are among the vehicles exempted from these two major standards. To complicate the issue further, NHTSA requires all passenger vehicles less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating to comply with the head injury protection requirements for upper interior impacts, including side impacts, but does not require similar compliance for vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating for lower interior torso protection under Standard No. 214.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Congress should enact S. 717 as well as direct NHTSA to conduct rulemaking and issue final regulations to extend the protection of all of the occupant protection standards, even those which need to be strengthened, to all passenger vehicles regardless of weight or size.

VEHICLE AGGRESSIVITY AND INCOMPATIBILITY ARE NEEDLESSLY CONTRIBUTING TO MOTOR VEHICLE DEATHS AND INJURIES.

The unparalleled growth in the sale and use of SUVs and other light trucks for personal transportation over the last 15 years has produced another major impediment to safety on our roads and highways. Large SUVs, pickup trucks, and full-size vans are disproportionately responsible for increasing the number of deaths and injuries when they collide with smaller passenger vehicles, including impacts even with small SUVs and mini-vans. This is known in vehicle safety engineering as "crash incompatibility". This means that when there are two unequal collision partners, as the engineers refer to the vehicles that strike each other, the bigger, heavier, taller vehicle almost always inflicts more severe damage on the smaller, lighter, shorter vehicle.

According to NHTSA, the number of passenger car occupants dying in two-vehicle crashes with light trucks or vans increased in 2002 compared to 2001, while the number of fatalities in the light trucks or vans actually decreased. These mismatch crashes are especially lethal when two factors are present: first, the heavier, bigger vehicle is the "bullet" or striking vehicle and the lighter, smaller vehicle is the "target" or struck vehicle, and, second, the bigger vehicle hits the smaller vehicle in the side. In these circumstances the consequences are fairly predictable. The bigger, heavier, higher vehicle rides over the lower door sills of the side of the small vehicle in a side impact, or rides above its low crash management features in a frontal collision. As a result, the smaller vehicle's occupant compartment suffers enormous deformation and intrusion from the impact with the bigger vehicle.

Recent studies by both American and Australian researchers have underscored the incredibly high level of harm that large light trucks and vans (LTVs), especially SUVs, inflicted on smaller passenger vehicles, particularly small cars, because of the large differences in weight, size, height, and stiffness. According to NHTSA, for cars struck in the near side by pickup trucks, there are 26 fatalities among passenger car drivers for each fatality among pickup truck drivers. For SUVs the ratio is 16 to 1.

To date, NHTSA has done essentially nothing to reduce this tremendous "harm difference" between the biggest, heaviest members of the passenger vehicle fleet and the smaller vehicles. The agency needs to reduce the aggressivity of larger vehicles and simultaneously to improve the protection of occupants in the smaller, struck vehicles by undertaking research and regulatory actions on an accelerated calendar. Although NHTSA indicates this is a safety priority area, the agency's FY '04 budget unfortunately does not include any request for increased funding for this initiative.

Advocates and others in the highway safety community are concerned that rhetoric does not match reality and the problem will continue to grow as LTVs become a larger percentage of the vehicle fleet. There are several actions the agency should be taking in order to address this growing problem. For example, in the area of research, NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis currently collects detailed crash information for a sample of moderate to high severity crashes. However, the data points collected do not adequately document and illuminate the most critical aspects of passenger vehicle to passenger vehicle crashes, especially those involving mismatched pairs. Similar change should apply to all agency data collection from real world crashes. Data collection would be further enriched if the number of cases investigated were increased to improve the ability of the agency to generalize about the reasons for vehicle responses and occupant injuries in crashes involving incompatible passenger vehicles.

NHTSA also can improve the compatibility between larger and smaller makes and models of the passenger fleet by reducing the aggressivity of larger vehicles, especially light trucks and vans. Lowering the front end height difference of larger, heavier vehicles to match the front ends and sides of smaller vehicles will prevent larger vehicles from riding over the front ends and side door sills of smaller passenger vehicles. Furthermore, simultaneously reducing the crash stiffness of larger pickup trucks, SUVs, and big vans would ensure that crash forces are more evenly distributed between larger and smaller vehicles in both front and side in multi-vehicle collisions, which would improve safety.

Side impacts in passenger cars alone resulted in about 5,400 deaths in each of the last few years, more than 30 percent of passenger car multiple-vehicle collision fatalities. Currently, the motor vehicle safety standards for upper interior side impact (FMVSS No. 201) and lower side impact (FMVSS No. 214) are too weak and need to be upgraded. When NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 214 back in the early 1990s, it should be noted that the majority of the passenger vehicle fleet already met its compliance requirements, even without any additional countermeasures. The standard was indexed to meet the existing protective capabilities of the vehicle fleet. Additional protection could be achieved by enhancing the side impact protection of occupants by requiring dynamic impact safety systems, such as air bags, for both upper and lower portions of the vehicle interior.

Lastly, consumers lack essential, basic information about how cars perform in side impact crashes. The NHTSA New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) conducts side impact crash tests on new cars but the tests use a barrier similar to a mid-size car to crash into small passenger vehicles. As a result, the test scores are misleading because they fail to inform consumers about how a vehicle performs in the real world. With the changing mix in the vehicle population and growing number of LTVs, especially SUVs, if you drive a car it is growing ever more likely you will be hit in the side by a vehicle larger than your own.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Require NHTSA to improve vehicle compatibility between larger and smaller makes and models of the passenger vehicle fleet by reducing the aggressivity of larger vehicles, especially light trucks and vans.

Enhance the front and side impact protection of occupants of small and mid-sized passenger vehicles.

Increase and improve data collection on the most critical aspects of passenger vehicle to passenger vehicle crashes, especially those involving mismatched collision partners.

Provide consumers with better information about how passenger cars perform in side impact crashes with vehicles that are not similar in size.

CONSUMER INFORMATION ON SAFETY IS FRAGMENTED AND INCOMPLETE.

Last year, more than 16.8 million new cars were sold in the United States. However, consumers entering dealer showrooms were hampered in making educated purchasing decision because of a lack of comprehensive, comparative information on the safety performance of different makes and models of automobiles. Consumer information on the comparative safety of vehicles and vehicle equipment remains woefully inadequate. Even though buying a car is the second most expensive consumer purchase, next to the purchase of a home, the majority of consumers end up at the mercy of the sales pitch and without recourse to objective information. While energy conservation information is required on home appliances and other household items and even on passenger vehicles, critical safety information is not required on vehicles at the point of sale. The fact is that consumers get more information about the health and safety value of a $3 box of cereal than they do about vehicles that cost $30,000 and more in the dealer showroom.

Providing vehicle buyers with important safety information at the point of sale is not a new idea. In 1994, the Secretary of Transportation suggested just such a label but it was never implemented. In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report that called for providing consumers with more and easier to use safety information, including a vehicle safety label with a summary safety rating. (Shopping for Safety, Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 248, National Academy of Sciences (1996).) Throughout the 1990s, in surveys conducted for Advocates by pollster Lou Harris, the public repeatedly expressed a strong desire for objective safety information. In a 2001 public opinion poll, 84 percent of the public supported placing a government safety rating on a window sticker on every new vehicle at the point of sale.

There is no doubt that consumers continue to clamor for helpful information about vehicle safety. A safety label on the vehicle will ensure that every purchaser will at least be aware of the same basic, objective safety information for every vehicle they are interested in buying. Additionally, NHTSA should release to the public all types of vehicle safety information including early warning information that Congress requires the agency to collect under the TREAD Act. In this way, consumers will be knowledgeable about the real world performance of vehicles they purchase and drive.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Congress should instruct NHTSA to require that all new vehicles display a safety label at the point of sale that informs prospective purchasers about the safety of the vehicle with respect to major vehicle safety standards as well as specific safety features and equipment, both mandated and optional, that are in the vehicle.

LEAVE NO STATE BEHIND: CONGRESS SHOULD ENCOURAGE UNIFORM STATE ADOPTION OF LIFE-SAVING HIGHWAY SAFETY LAWS AND PROVIDE STATES WITH SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO ENFORCE THESE LAWS.

Improving highway safety requires a two-pronged strategy involving better vehicle design and changing driver behavior. Successful changes in driver behavior have been accomplished only through the enactment of laws, enforcement of those laws and education about the laws. Unfortunately, too few states have adopted some of the most effective traffic safety laws that contribute to saving lives and preventing injuries on our roads and highways. The recently released 2002 traffic fatality statistics underscore the need to make an investment in safety and ensure the effectiveness of programs if we are to reverse the rising tide of highway fatalities and injuries.

Historically, funding for highway and traffic safety needs through the Section 402 program and other incentive grant initiatives has provided needed resources to states to advance safety. The level of funding and how those funds are used will be critical elements in determining the course of highway safety in the next six years.

Advocates is disappointed in DOT's proposal submitted to Congress last week outlining the Administration's plans for funding state traffic safety activities as well as other measures to address growing highway fatalities.

The funding level for DOT's Section 402 traffic safety program is inadequate to meet the challenges we face. When one adds up all of the various categories the Administration's proposal provides for traditional highway safety programs, it equals about $539 million. This represents only a marginal funding increase of $20 million for FY 2004 over the FY 2003 total of $519 million. It amounts to less than a 4 percent increase in funding. Furthermore, the Administration's proposal includes a vigorous new program for data collection and analysis. While we support the need for such a program, if you subtract the proposed $50 million dollars for the state information systems grant program, the remaining authorization for highway safety grants in FY 2004 is actually $30 million less than was authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for FY 2003.

These programs, however, are only effective if they promote specific safety goals and improvements. Despite the marginal increase in funding proposed by the Administration over the coming six years, the traffic death toll will not decline until nearly all occupants buckle up and impaired driving is abated. The Administration's proposal includes a meager $50 million for state impaired driving programs. This amount does not even equal the financial cost of 50 drunk driving deaths - the number that occurs daily on our highways - out of a national total in 2002 of 17,970 alcohol-related deaths.

Safety, medical, health, and law enforcement groups and DOT all agree that seat belt use is critical to safety in most crash modes. Last year, statistics show that the majority of fatally injured victims were not wearing their seat belts. It is incumbent on safety advocates, the Administration, and Congress, to ensure that everyone gets the message, "buckle up for safety." We can do this by requiring all states to adopt and enforce primary enforcement seat belt use laws. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have seat belt laws on the books. Of these, only 18 states and the District have primary enforcement seat belt use laws. Switching from a seat belt use law that permits only secondary enforcement, when another infraction has been committed, to a primary enforcement law entails no additional costs or burdens and is not an unfunded (or unfounded) mandate to the states. We have tried incentive grants for years, and we know that redirection programs usually result in nothing more than a funding shell game. For these reasons, Advocates supports a mandatory sanction of Federal-aid highway funds to promote seat belt use and safety. Such sanctions have been effective when used judiciously and to promote important safety goals, such as state adoption of the minimum drinking age law, the zero alcohol tolerance law, and .08% BAC laws.

We realize that the Administration includes a primary enforcement seat belt law funding redirection provision in the proposed new Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). That proposal will not be effective in moving states to adopt primary enforcement laws for a number of reasons. First, the redirection of funds does not occur if a state either adopts a primary enforcement seat belt law or achieves a seat belt use rate of 90 percent or more. By permitting the 90 percent belt use alternative, the proposal gives reluctant states the hope that both redirection of funds and primary enforcement can be avoided. Even though no state has ever achieved 90 percent belt use without primary enforcement, this option may well lead states to delay or never adopt a primary enforcement seat belt law. Second, the redirection affects only 10 percent of the total $1 billion Highway Safety Improvement Program. For many states, their share will probably not be sufficient penalty to entice them to adopt primary enforcement. Third, the redirection would require that the redirected 10 percent of the state's Highway Safety Improvement Program funds be expended on Section 402 programs. This may pose problems for the appropriate expenditure of safety funds when large amounts of funding are funneled into the program at the last minute, without proper planning and preparation. Moreover, funds redirected from the Highway Safety Improvement Program might be in addition to funds required to be transferred to the state's Section 402 program if the state has not complied with the requirements of Section 154 (Open container requirements) and Section 164 (Minimum penalties for repeat offenders).

The final problem with the proposed redirection is the funding shell game. Under the Administration's proposal, while 10 percent of the Highway Safety Improvement Program may be redirected to the Section 402 program, half or more of the funds received by a state under the newly proposed Performance Grants could be transferred out of the Section 402 program and back into the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Thus, the proposed redirection ends up as a meaningless paper chase and accounting gimmick that will not serve the goals of improving safety and increasing the number of people who buckle up.

In addition, for some years now, the Section 402 program has been flying under the radar of good principles of accountability and responsibility. Although we support increasing funds available to states for safety, we are concerned that the funds already in the Section 402 program are not being spent in the most effective manner. Over the years, the program has devolved into a self-reporting system in which states set their own goals and determine whether those goals have been met. In essence, states make up their own test, grade their own papers, and write their own report cards.

According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report issued in April, 2003 (GAO-03-474) in response to a request by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND), NHTSA has the ability to conduct management reviews to help improve the financial and operational management of state programs. However, GAO found that there are no written guidelines on when to perform management reviews and those reviews are not being performed consistently. For example, the GAO found that in the six NHTSA regions visited, there were goals of conducting management reviews every two years but there was no set schedule and they were conducted only when requested by a state.

Furthermore, when a state program is struggling, NHTSA has the ability to work with a state to develop improvement plans. Again, GAO found that NHTSA has made limited use of improvement plans to help states address highway safety program deficiencies. If federal dollars for traffic safety programs are increased but there is no increase in accountability and oversight, the American public will be victimized twice - taxpayer dollars will be wasted and highway safety will be jeopardized.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Enact the DOT proposed incentive grant program encouraging adoption of primary enforcement safety belt laws but include a sanction after a reasonable time frame to ensure every state passes this lifesaving law by the end of the authorization period.

Prohibit states that are subject to redirecting funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) into the Section 402 program from shifting Section 402 funds back into the HSIP.

Significantly increase funding for impaired driving programs that have a proven track record.

Ensure accountability by requiring the expenditure of Section 402 traffic safety funds on programs that are successful and increase NHTSA oversight of state program plans.

ENHANCE THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN AND AROUND CARS.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and injury to children. In 2002, 2,584 children under the age of 16 were killed in motor vehicle crashes and nearly 300,000 were injured. This means that every single day in the United States, seven children under the age of 16 are killed and 850 are injured in car crashes. While the recently released preliminary FARS data indicates that last year fatalities for children age 7 and younger declined, it was not good news for older children. Fatalities for motor vehicle occupants ages 8 to 15 increased by almost 9 percent.

While some progress has been made in protecting our youth, clearly more needs to be done. The decline in death and injury for children ages 4 through 7 is likely related to efforts throughout the country to enact booster seat laws. The movement started in the State of Washington because a mother, Autumn Skeen, lost her 4 year old son, Anton, in a car crash. Anton's parents believe his death would have been prevented if he had been riding in a booster seat and not just an adult seat belt. Three years after the Washington State Legislature became the first state to act, 16 states and the District of Columbia have booster seat laws that require children between the ages of 4 and 7 or 8 to use booster seats once they have outgrown toddler child restraints.

The need to protect children who have graduated from infant and toddler safety seats has been documented by research conducted by The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in partnership with State Farm Insurance Companies. This research has found that half of children between the ages of 3 and 8 are improperly restrained in adult seat belts. This inappropriate restraint results in a three and one-half-fold increase in the risk of significant injury and a four-fold increase in the risk of a serious head injury for those in this age group who are restrained by adult seat belts.

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been a leader in moving forward a legislative agenda to enhance the safety of child passengers. In the 106th Congress, legislation that originated with the Senate Commerce Committee requiring NHTSA to provide consumer information about the performance of child safety seats, was included in the final version of the TREAD Act. In the last Congress, this Committee again took the lead to push for legislation, named "Anton's Law", requiring NHTSA to issue a federal safety standard for booster seats and requiring automakers to install, at long last, a shoulder/lap belt in all rear seating positions.

The next step that needs to be taken to protect this age group is to encourage state adoption of booster seat laws. Advocates urges the Committee to take up and modify a proposal that was dropped from last year's congressional enactment of "Anton's Law." This provision was a small grant program to foster state adoption of booster seat laws. Advocates supports a simple but direct incentive grant program that provides financial rewards to states that adopt booster seat laws and allows them to use the grants for enforcement of the new law, education about the new law, and provision of age-appropriate child restraints to families in need.

Another serious safety risk that we urge the Committee to address in the NHTSA reauthorization legislation involves children who are left unattended in vehicles or standing behind vehicles that are placed in reverse, resulting in unnecessary deaths and injuries each year. Non-profit organizations, such as Kids 'N Cars, have documented in private research, the deaths of hundreds of children who were left in cars when outside temperatures soared, who were inadvertently killed when a car or truck backed over them, or who were killed or injured by power windows and sunroof systems that were not child-proof. It is time that NHTSA lead the effort to collect data on child fatalities and injuries that occur in or immediately outside the car, but not on public roadways. Also, NHTSA needs to analyze the data and take subsequent action to remedy safety inadequacies as they affect children.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Include in the NHTSA authorization legislation an incentive grant program to encourage states to adopt booster seat laws. Permit funds to be used for enforcement, education and distribution of child restraints to families in need.

Direct NHTSA to collect and publish data on child fatalities and injuries in parked or inoperable vehicles that result from strangulation and injuries involving automatic windows, and those from backing up collisions.

Require NHTSA to ensure automatic window systems will not kill or injure children.

Require NHTSA to enhance driver rear visibility to prevent backing up crashes into children and adults.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations for action that Advocates supports are common sense, cost effective and will achieve savings in lives and dollars. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been a leader in advancing legislative solutions to improve safety in all modes of transportation. Motor vehicle crashes are equivalent to a major airline crash every other day of the year. This public health epidemic does not have to continue unabated. Enactment of proposals to move the agency forward in addressing the unfinished regulatory agenda and providing states with direction and resources will reverse the deadly trend facing us in the coming years. Advocates' vision for the future is testifying before this subcommittee in 2006 to report that the U.S. experienced the lowest traffic fatalities in a decade, the war on drunk driving was being won, fatal rollover crashes were decreasing and motor vehicle crashes were no longer the leading cause of death and injury for Americans, young and old. We appreciate the invitation to testify today and look forward to working with this committee to craft a bill that will save lives and prevent needless deaths and injuries.